FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT June 20, 2007 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 15631 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 6 - 0 0 0 4 0 - CR- 3 - RV U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s C H A R L E S L . P R E S I D E N T , J R ., D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N or the rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju n e 20, 2007) B efo re B L A C K , C A RN E S an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: C harl es L . P re si dent , Jr . appeal s hi s s ent ence , w hi ch i ncl ud es a three -y ea r2

t erm of supervi se d rel ea se . D uri ng P re si dent ’ s pl eacol l oq uy, the di stri ctcourt i ncorrec t l y i nform ed P re si dentthathe fa ce d a m axi m um of tw o yea rs ’ supervi se d re l ea se w hen h e a ctual l y f ac ed a m axi m um of three ye ar s. T he pres ent ence i nve s t i ga t i on r e por tc orr e c t l y i ndi c a t e d a thr e e - y e a rm a xi m um pe r i od. P r e s i de nt t ol d the courtthathe had read the P S R and h ad no obj ec t i on s. N or di d h e have an o b je c tio n w h e n th e c o u r t im p o s e d th e th r e e - y e a rte r m . W e r e vi e w f

orpl a i n e rr orw he n, a s he r e , the de f e nda ntf a i l e d t o r a i s e a ny error i n h i s F eder al R ul e of C ri m i nal P roce du re 11 pl eacol l oq uy before the di stri ct c o u r t. U n ite d S ta te s v . J a m e s , 2 1 0 F .3 d 1 3 4 2 , 1 3 4 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . U n d e rp la in e rr o rr e v ie w , a n ap p e lla te c o u r t m a y n o t c o rr e c t a n e rr o rth a t th e d e f e n d a n t f a ile d to ra i se i n the di stri ctcourtun l es s there i s: (1) e rr or; (2) thati s pl ai n; and (3) that af fe ct s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s. If al l three cond i t i on s a re m et , an appel l at e c ou rtm ay the n e xe r c i s e i t s di s c r e t i on t o not i c e a f or f e i t e d e rr or , butonl y i f

( 4) the e rr or se ri ou sl y a ff

ec t s the fa i rnes s, i nt egri ty, or pu bl i c r eput at i on of the j ud i ci al proceedi ng s. U ni t ed S t at es v. R od ri gu ez , 39 8 F . 3d 12 91 , 12 97 –9 8 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). In U ni t ed S t at es v. D om i ng uez B eni t ez , 54 2 U . S . 74 , 12 4 S . C t . 23 33 (200 4), the S up re m e C ou rtrul ed thata def endantw ho se eks r ever sa l of hi s c on vi ct i on af t er a gui l ty pl e a on the gr ound tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d pl a i n e rr ordur i ng the3

R ul e 11 c ol l oquy m us ts how a r e a s ona bl e pr oba bi l i ty tha t , butf orthe e rr or , he w ou l d n othave ent er ed the pl ea . Id. at83 , 12 4 S . C t . at23 40 . P re si dentconcedes th a t h e c a n n o t m e e t th e D o m in g u e z B e n ite z s ta n d a r d . H e a ls o c o n c e d e s th a t h e d id notobj e c tt o hi s s e nt e nc e ort o the c ont e nt s of the P S R . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. C ar ey , 88 4 F . 2d 54 7, 54 9 (11 th C i r. 19 89 ) ( ho l di ng thatthe defendant ’ s s ub st ant i al ri gh t s w er e notvi ol at ed w here , al tho ug h the di stri ctcourterre d b y f ai l i ng t o i nform the de f e nda nta thi s pl e a he a r i ng of the t e r m of

s upe r vi s e d r e l e a s e , the de f e nda nt f a i l e d t o obj e c tt o the c our t ’ s i m pos i t i on, pur s ua ntt o the P S R , of a t e r m of supervi se d rel ea se ). P r e s i de ntc i t e s no l e ga l a uthor i ty i ndi c a t i ng tha tw e s houl d i ns truc tthe di stri ctcourtt o m od i fy the t erm of supervi se d rel ea se . Inst ea d, he ar gu es thati f a courti s notbo un d b y i t s r epre se nt at i on s w i th res pectt o sent enci ng l i m i t at i on s then the f a i rne s s , i nt e gr i ty , orpubl i c r e put a t i on of j udi c i a l pr oc e e di ngs w i l l be u n d e r m in e d . T o th e e x te n t, if a n y , th a t a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s g o o d f a ith e f f o r t to e x p la in the consequences of apl eat o a defendantconst i tut es a prom i se t o abi de by that de s c r i pt i on, P r e s i de ntc oul d ha ve a s ke d the di s tr i c tc our tt o ke e p i t s pr om i s e . O ur r e vi e w i s onl y f

orpl a i n e rr or . U nde rpl a i n e rr orr e vi e w , w hi c h i s a uthor i z e d by F ed eral R u l e o f C ri m i n al P ro ced u re 5 2 (b ), fed eral ap p el l at e co u rt s h av e o n l y a lim ite d p o w e rto c o rr e c t e rr o r s th a t w e r e f o r f e ite d b e c a u s e th e y w e r e n o t tim e ly4

r a is e d in th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. R o d r ig u e z , 3 9 8 F .3 d 1 2 9 1 , 1 2 9 8 ( q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . D i sr egar di ng the S up re m e C ou rt ’ s hol di ng i n D om i ng uez B eni t ez w ou l d n otbe a st ep t o w ard s i m p ro v i n g th e i n t eg ri ty o f th ese p ro ceed i n g s. AF F I RME D.